Neo-liberalism has always been connoted as “privatization,” “deregulation,” “decentralization,” or “tax reform.” Fish (p. 1) defines neo-liberalism as “a derogatory term to a group of economic and political policies which is founded on the positive effects of a free market system. The most popular definition of neo-liberalism is by Paul Treanor who defined it under the book “Neoliberalism: Origins, Theory, Definition” as:
“a philosophy valuing the market existence and operation as it is, distinct from any of its previous links with the production of goods and services . . . and where the market and similar structure’s mechanics are seen as normative by itself, enabling the related actors to be ethical and responsible in their human actions and replacing for all the pre-existing moral beliefs (Fish, p. 1).”
Interestingly, neoliberalists do not believe very much in state intervention. The market runs by itself and sets its own order. This has been institutionalized by the U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Great Britain’s Margaret Thatcher (p. 1).
In the last 30 years, neo-liberalism has become the major economic and political theory in the United States (Saunders, p. 4). It has revived and revitalized the classical liberalism that was the foundation of the U.S. socio-economic policies in the 19th and the late 20th centuries. The theory’s philosophy has been expanded and it was indicated by the dramatic state sponsored social services, the extension of the economic principles of neo-liberalism to socio-cultural and political systems, and the identification of the individual as an independent economic agent rather than a mere citizen of the state (p. 4). Thus, the redefinition of the roles of political, social and economic institutions has emerged during this neo-liberalist hegemony (p. 5). During the final years of the 1980’s, the international stage of neo-liberalism evolved with the international expansion of the democratic electoral systems lined with capitlaism (Fish, p. 1).
Neo-liberalism and Public Education
The significant influence of neo-liberalist thoughts and principles also influenced the United States education, specifically the higher public education sector. In the last forty years, the structures, objectives and the resources of the U.S. higher education as well as the agenda, interest and motives of its educational staff and students have integrated with neo-liberal ideas and applications. While the social and economic roles of the higher education have not changed, the influences of neo-liberalist thoughts have significantly changed the conditions in which these educational institutions realize their roles. It has enhanced the past models of higher education, which has always been considered to be pro-elite and the ruling class (Saunders, p. 4).
This led to the “privatization” of education, the same way as other social institutions in the U.S. have been privatized (i.e. medical care, social security, tolls, railways, roads, airlines, production of energy resources, communications, etc.). They assumed that a free enterprise is more efficient because it is primarily motivated by profits and efficiency. They also assume that by privatizing all of these institutions, all of the citizens will be better off in the future, even when they are disadvantaged at first (p. 6). This has been embodied in higher education through the twentieth century universities, which are characterized and evaluated greatly in terms of commercial and practical values than being conceived as an important public institution. States have withdrawn significant amount of public funds for state or public universities. These public institutions have been deduced into a poorer counterpart since its financial resources have been cut tremendously while being expected to produce quality against the increased costs of delivering quality education throughout trying times.
Because of these challenges, the universities have no recourse but to increase their tuition fees. They passed on the burdens to the students who also turned to commercial instruments to afford themselves of quality education (Fish, p. 1). Universities also partnered with commercial institutions and industry giants for research endeavors as a means of obtaining more educational resources but to the detriment of the pursuit of knowledge. They also recruit part time and short term instructors who are not able to challenge the system of the university when it deviates from the realization of democratic goals. All these indicate how the neo-liberalist principles and ideas have transformed the U.S. public education.
In 2011, the economic recession has challenged public education even more. According to Fish (p. 1), national cuts in education budget meant 40,000 losses of teaching jobs. In 2012, more school districts have cut more teaching jobs on a nationwide scale. They have also decreased their school district projects by 83 percent (p. 1). Dramatic cuts have been symbolized by Kansas City’s school board’s decision to shut down 28 out of 61 of its city schools. California State University also increased its tuition by 20 percent while the University of California increased its tuition fees by 32 percent.
Because of its reduced resources, the public school system has turned into a drastic deterioration. It is often characterized by overcrowding and crumbling, lack of important technology and resources, exhausted and pressured teachers, and lack of quality education. These detrimental conditions have led to a dramatic high school dropout rate which is 30 percent nationwide. The dropout rate for city high schools is more than 50 percent (Russom, p. 1).
Analysis
Education must always be a centerpiece of any social or economic reofrms in a country. This is the area where change is necessary and where change must be instantly instituted. However, the use of neo-liberal theory and principles is being utilized by the present government to achieve better than what George W. Bush has achieved through his forefront educational reform called “No Child Left Behind Policy (NCLB).”
As Russom (p. 1) has generalized, the Obama adminsitration is bent on reforming and upgrading the present educational system with its three major characteristics: assessing teachers through students’ test score data, closing down or reconstituting city schools and expanding commercially operated, mostly non-union chartered institutions. Other defining elements consist of curriculum standardization and the extending of the school hours. This educational agenda is supported by a mostly powerful group such as businessmen, Democrats and Republicans and various non-profit organizations (p. 1).
Very recently, President Obama even showed his full commitment to these policies (p. 1). It is obvious that the Obama administration’s institutional reforms are direct applications of neo-liberalism. It is founded on stimulus funding and more state supervision of the education system to force states to confront teachers’ unions and hand over a major part of the local schools to privately owned chartered schools.
The absolute reasons for the instigation of the neo-liberalist educational agenda are the following: 1. the economic recession in the country and Obama’s reluctance to face criticisms from unions and the Left. Because of the economic problems, the government is seeing the educational sector as a viable opportunity to raise funds since the U.S. public education is worth billions of money. This also aligns with the interests of some chartered school owners who want to operate schools for profits. Commercial entities such as these chartered school operators are very excited about these educational reforms because they are certain to recruit good educators at very affordable wages and employ them efficiently as educational personnel.
The most neglected aspect in this recourse is that these neo-liberalist moves and actions are really not solving the educational problems. Even with increased standardized testings, tight supervision of poor schools, replacement of charter schools, etc., and the quality of public education has not yet shown positive signs of recovery. In contrast, the neo-liberal applications on educational reforms have the tendency to damage public education in the years to come. Another sad plight is that the U.S. educational system is normally characterized by its role in churning out an employable workforce in a capitalist economy (Russom, p. 1). This implies the direct relations of reforming not only the social institutions but primarily the economic and political systems in a country.
The present educational crisis is a great time for educational reformers and activists to resist change and propose new agenda and ideas for improving public education. It highlights the nation’s commitment to genuine change and reflects its real priorities. It is sad to note how commercial institutions are being saved by the federal resources while the teachers are left without jobs. Education is a vital segment of our society and it is but inherent for the government to reform and save this very crucial social institution. However, the present reality shows the opposite.
Conclusion
The dismal state of public education cannot be left to neo-liberalist policies. Reforms in public education must include various reformers, activists, involved parents and families, participative community, union members, among others. The future of public education is obscured by its present problems and the challenges. Among which, the financial resources remain a top concern.
In the end, the genuine reformists of the public educational system will not only counter the neo-liberalist policies. However, they will have to contend with the changing role of education in a more global and highly commercialized society. The real purpose of developing enlightened men and women must not be neglected. Instead, this must be reinforced and revived. The important roles of the educators must not also be demphasized. Teachers remain the major agent of change as they mold the minds of our future generation. Neoliberalist changes in the way the teachers are prepared to teach must be discarded. Instead of pressuring them, teachers must be encouraged even more through better compensation packages and professional development. Most especially, they must be protected by a security of tenure, even at the face of closing schools due to the lack of government funds. The government needs to think of better reforms to rescue the teachers in this very frustrating situation. Finally, the students must not be burdened by the tuition fee hikes. Rather, they must be freed by the price of education and the government must shoulder this burden and not the students.
Works Cited:
Fish, Stainley. Neoliberalisma nd Higher Education. The New York Times: The Opinion Pages. Accessed on 26 June 2012 <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/neoliberalism-and-higher-education/>.
Russom, Gillian. Obama’s Neoliberal Agenda for Education. International Socialist Review. Online Edition. Accessed on 26 June 2012 < http://www.isreview.org/issues/71/feat-neoliberaleducation.shtml>.
Saunders, Daniel B. (n.d.). Neoliberal Ideology and Public Higher Education in the United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, vol.8. no.1
